Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dr. Strangemonkey" data-source="post: 1810171" data-attributes="member: 6533">Good point about the diversity of the period.I don't know much about Boissonnade, but point one is a little bit odd.  There were periods and elements of the church that might have been considered overly apocalyptic, but a substantial portion of the church's energies were dedicated to producing new art.  Medieval worshippers expected it, and institutions were in constant competition to create buildings and reliquaries that would inspire their worshippers.  The economy created by this cycle was very impressive.  Even Bernard of Clairvaux, among the most important medieval reformers, did not so much argue against art as the appropriateness of private and/or secular art in religious communities.He could be referred to Savanarola and the Bonfire of the Vanities but that was more of a Renaissance phenomena.  Medieval Roman catholics were pretty clearly in favor of art and iconography.Point two I'm not certain I understand.  Certainly, capital formation was not up to the level that would invest 12 million in a portable piece of art with the expectation that it would act as a very good bond, or that would take out bonds on David Bowie's musical library or set up foundation to verify and catalogue the art of Andy Warhol.  But the nobility and church certainly didn't agree on a belief that the nobility owned all labor.  The church and secular nobility frequently clashed over the exact rights of peasants.  Ironicly, where the church often supported further rights for peasants church landlords were considered worse because they were harder to cheat.  If anything the 'problem' with medieval economies was that peasants were forced to keep too much of their labour rather than being able to leverage land rights indepedently or sell themselves as cheap labor.Still, without reading the work or having it explained I don't know what I can say against it, aside from the overall point that art was not a fluid a market is certainly correct.Byzantium is cool, I highly recommend looking up what you can on it.  Their artistic traditions and technology suffered fewer disruptions than in the West, they had some really neat tricks, and, at times, pretty sophisticated theory on the matter.  Orthodox participation theory is one of the coolest perspectives on art I've run into.</blockquote>

Verification